Cal.1: Search condition for mental health diversion was within court’s discretion

The trial court acted within its statutory discretion imposing a search condition on defendant during his mental health diversion. His criminal history justified it. Thompson v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 459 (1st Dist. July 30, 2026).

One defendant completely failed to make a Franks preliminary showing, and the other’s attempt just wasn’t enough. United States v. Hunter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166370 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2026).*

“As part of counsel’s approach to standing, counsel declined to stipulate Wooden’s ownership of the cell phone numbers because the state attributed the cell phones to Wooden and counsel presumed standing would not be contested. Tactical decisions, even if debatable, are generally not considered deficient unless they are so egregious that they undermine the adversarial process. … Here, Wooden’s counsel pursued a strategy, i.e., establish standing to challenge the cell phone data and residence search, without conceding any interest in the phones. Based on the record presented, counsel’s approach fell within reasonable trial strategy.” And relying on an overruled case wasn’t prejudicial. State v. Wooden, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2781 (10th Dist. July 28, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.